German court deepens AI‑copyright split, says lyric similarity not coincidental
When a German court examined a set of song lyrics generated by a AI model, the case instantly sparked a fresh debate about copyright. The plaintiff argued the verses echoed an existing song, so the judges put the two texts side by side. They measured the sheer length of the lines and the twisty phrasing, then asked a simple question: does the output count as a copy of protected material?
Some courts seem to treat AI-created works as brand-new, while others view them as derivative. In this instance the bench felt the overlap was too big to shrug off as random, suggesting the model’s output crossed the line.
According to the court’s press release, the similarity could not be chalked up to coincidence given how long and complex the songs are. That, the judges said, was enough to qualify as copyright-relevant reproduction. The decision shows courts starting to apply old-fashioned copyright rules to algorithms that can mimic human creativity.
After comparing the original lyrics to the model's output, the court said the similarity could not be explained by coincidence, given the length and complexity of the songs, according to its press release. For the judges, this was enough to count as copyright-relevant reproduction. The lyrics are embedded in the model's parameters, meaning they're embodied in the model itself, even if only as probability values.
The court cited the EU directive on reproductions, which covers works "by any means and in any form, in whole or in part." In general, companies developing large language models can make copies for analysis under text and data mining (TDM) rules. But the court said this only covers copies needed to assemble a training dataset.
The Munich Regional Court did grant GEMA’s request for an injunction, ordered the model’s training data to be disclosed and handed out damages - but the ruling isn’t final yet. By calling the similarity between ChatGPT’s output and the original verses “not coincidental,” the judges treated those excerpts as a copyright-relevant reproduction. That view leans heavily on the songs’ length and complexity, something the court highlighted in its press release.
Across the Channel, a recent UK judgment went the other way, which just shows how split national courts are on this point. If the German decision holds, developers could end up needing licences before they even touch lyrical material in training. The appeal route, however, is still fuzzy and the wider legal framework for AI-generated text remains unsettled.
Some critics say the “coincidence” test will be tough to apply consistently. We’ll be watching how higher courts react, but for now the split stays and the real-world impact on AI services is still unclear.
Related Reading
LLMs & Generative AI OpenAI says AI saves knowledge workers 40‑80 minutes; use yields five‑fold gains
LLMs & Generative AI Grok Chat: AI for debugging, building, testing web apps with voice and images
LLMs & Generative AI Samsung adds Vision AI Companion, an AI Bixby, to TVs for real‑time queries
Common Questions Answered
What did the Munich Regional Court decide about the similarity between the AI‑generated lyrics and the original song?
The court concluded that the similarity could not be explained by coincidence, citing the length and complexity of the verses. It therefore treated the AI‑generated excerpts as copyright‑relevant reproduction and granted GEMA’s request for an injunction.
How does the court’s ruling define the role of a model’s parameters in copyright infringement?
The judges stated that the lyrics are embedded in the model’s parameters as probability values, meaning the model itself contains the copyrighted material. This embedding was deemed sufficient to count as a reproduction under the EU directive on reproductions.
What actions did the court order regarding the AI model’s training data?
The Munich Regional Court ordered the disclosure of the model’s training data as part of the injunction against GEMA. This requirement aims to verify whether the original lyrics were used during the model’s training process.
Why did the court emphasize the length and complexity of the songs in its decision?
The court highlighted these factors because they make it unlikely that the similarity arose by chance, strengthening the argument for copyright infringement. According to the press release, this emphasis was crucial for classifying the output as a copyright‑relevant reproduction.